Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Can god, or anyone, make 1+1 not equal 2?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God and Logic?
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
1 (man) plus 1 (woman) = 1 man, 1 woman and 1 baby.
Edit: make that 2.5 babies.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yeah, that wasn't the question.
Yeah . . . the question asked for something to be "not".
So the question is: Can god, or anyone, make something "not", and that makes no linquistic sense. "To make" is a building word.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Christ...
Can god, or anyone, cause the equation 1+1 to equal something other than 2 (excluding binary)?
That's better.
Since "2" is definitionally the addition of "1" and "1", the real question now is: Can god, or anyone, make something that doesn't match its definition. Don't we do that everyday when we argue that someone has "redefined" things, such that they no longer suit our "own understanding", which differs?
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
That's better.
Since "2" is definitionally the addition of "1" and "1", the real question now is: Can god, or anyone, make something that doesn't match its definition. Don't we do that everyday when we argue that someone has "redefined" things, such that they no longer suit our "own understanding", which differs?
1+1=2 is also a logical statement, which is the context in which I am referencing it. The real question now is: Can god, or anyone, cause something to happen which is inconsistent with logic (e.g., Can god, or anyone, cause the equation 1+1 to equal something other than 2 (excluding binary)?
It is a logical statement, yes, and considering that we --each, individually --define "2", "1", "logic" and "God", the question is still being misrepresented.
But that's probably just me. (Don't mind me.)
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello
If God is a rational being, then no He cannot violate logic. If God is outside the bounds of reason, then God is an absurdity and can be dismissed by the rational mind.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief here...this is breaking down badly....
In the beginning...the Word was with God.
Words are items of expression, and expression breaks the silence.
To shout into the void is illogical as no response can be made.
It is illogical to speak when there is nothing to say, and nothing of substance...not even an echo.
To disturb perfection is not logical.
In the beginning....God created light.
Light is an aberration. It broke the perfection of the uniformity of darkness.
Does God have a shadow?
Are we reflections...or images?
Numbers can not be applied to the singularity.
A secondary point induces geometry....height, width, length.
And without movement...no time values.
But for the singularity to be truly singular...a secondary point is not present...in the beginning.
Without the secondary....there are no numbers.... no equations.
Creating such things distorts the perfection of the void.
Illogical.
Apparently....God did not 'think' His way into this.
He 'felt' like it.
In the beginning...the Word was with God.
Words are items of expression, and expression breaks the silence.
To shout into the void is illogical as no response can be made.
It is illogical to speak when there is nothing to say, and nothing of substance...not even an echo.
To disturb perfection is not logical.
In the beginning....God created light.
Light is an aberration. It broke the perfection of the uniformity of darkness.
Does God have a shadow?
Are we reflections...or images?
Numbers can not be applied to the singularity.
A secondary point induces geometry....height, width, length.
And without movement...no time values.
But for the singularity to be truly singular...a secondary point is not present...in the beginning.
Without the secondary....there are no numbers.... no equations.
Creating such things distorts the perfection of the void.
Illogical.
Apparently....God did not 'think' His way into this.
He 'felt' like it.
There are exceptions and variations you are not accounting for in logistical thinking like this. Not all mechanics wear jumpsuits. Some mechanics (shade tree mechanics if you will) wear t-shirts and blue jeans. Not a big deal but it throws off the logical thinking completely.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Beaudreaux here....I'm a Pastifarian. That's my religion. Oh yeah, and I'm a senior member here, too. I joined the forum back in January 2009. Anyway, that's who I am and this is me...Just wanted to be sure you knew...OH! and I live in Pennsylvania...And I'm a dude. Anyway, it's me...So............................WHAT?!?!?!?
Last edited:
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
But it is logically perfect, if the premises are true. If they are not then the conclusion does not follow.
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
BTW, "logistical" thinking is not the same thing as "logical" thinking.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Can the laws of logic be applied to an imaginary being? Perhaps, it would depend on which god we are talking about. Assuming you mean the christian god I must say logic would be inherently meaningless. The bible is full of illogical and immoral actions and commands on god's part. In the absence of logical or ethical explanations/justifications christians often end up copping out by saying something like god is beyond our compreshension, thus all logic is lost when discussing this god. Curious enough though, while in the bible god gives humans commandments to live by, the character appearently feels he does not have to follow them, putting himself above the law. It's like if a president who helps pass a law decides he doesn't need to follow it because he helped create it. So if logic is a gift or law of god, then clearly he does not feel required to follow it himself.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Thief here............
So..........................................................WHAT????????
So..........................................................WHAT????????
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Beaudreaux
Well-Known Member
Beaudreaux here....I'm a Pastifarian. That's my religion. Oh yeah, and I'm a senior member here, too. I joined the forum back in January 2009. Anyway, that's who I am and this is me...Just wanted to be sure you knew...OH! and I live in Pennsylvania...And I'm a dude. Anyway, it's me...So....lol. Fair enough.
Your narrative was poetic, but I really didn't get the argument you were trying to make. I know that poetry is beautiful, but the language of philosophy must be more precise. Can you restate in clearer terms?Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
For example?